Category talk:Saint George

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Depictions of St George[edit]

The saint is traditionally depicted in art as a rider. --Evrik 21:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This category concerns Saint George, not works of arts. The reference is the English Wikipedia en:Saint George. We are not going to add far-fetched categories to please you. --Juiced lemon 21:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The subject of this category is Saint George, who is not an object, neither a specific objet as a work of art. Categorization have to be done according to the SUBJECT, never according to the CONTENTS. This logic rule is the basis of the organization in Commons. Kids can distinguish between elements and sets of elements. Why not you? --Juiced lemon 18:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since his depictions are all art, the addition of the art category is wholley appropriate. When you say, "Categorization have to be done according to the SUBJECT, never according to the CONTENTS." Please cite your source.--Evrik 05:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What did you expect? Photographs? This a category about a man, not about depictions. Categories <object> in art are for works of art, not for persons. More, you'll hardly find rider pictures in this category. --Juiced lemon 18:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you can categorize depictions in art categories. However, you have not yet noticed that Saint George is a man, not a depiction. Art categories are not designed to collect near all people on earth before the invention of photography. --Juiced lemon 10:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
en:Mona Lisa is one of the names given to a painting by en:Leonardo da Vinci, therefore the subject of Category:Mona Lisa regards this painting. When the sitter is himself or herself an encyclopedic topics, we have to create a specific category for him or her (and vice-versa). --Juiced lemon 12:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Protection[edit]

When is this getting unprotected? --Evrik 21:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]